Since it's based on a Linux kernel, maybe 2010 will be the year of the Linux
netbook!

There... fixed that for you.

While I could certainly see them having some success on the netbook side of things if they can build a suite that is insanely easy to use for those folks who use netbooks what they are intended for (basic web browsing, limited email & word processing)...
however given the likely dialing down of the complexity of it all... I wonder if they will be able to also retain Linux fans who will use it not just because it’s Google and Linux, but because they want to tweak with the system like they would any other Linux
box.

Since it's based on a Linux kernel, maybe 2010 will be the year of the Linux
netbook!

There... fixed that for you.

While I could certainly see them having some success on the netbook side of things if they can build a suite that is insanely easy to use for those folks who use netbooks what they are intended for (basic web browsing, limited email & word processing)...
however given the likely dialing down of the complexity of it all... I wonder if they will be able to also retain Linux fans who will use it not just because it’s Google and Linux, but because they want to tweak with the system like they would any other Linux
box.

This might actually be a huge risk to Windows, if you ask me. The whole Google = awesome crowd has some pretty big weight, bigger so than Mac or Linux. Either that, or it'll go the same way as Linux netbooks with ordinary Walmart customers returning the
things because they just can't get their stuff done.

Royal​SchrubberOne. How many time travellers does it take to change a lightbulb?

This might actually be a huge risk to Windows, if you ask me. The whole Google = awesome crowd has some pretty big weight, bigger so than Mac or Linux. Either that, or it'll go the same way as Linux netbooks with ordinary Walmart customers returning the
things because they just can't get their stuff done.

It's guaranteed to be more useless. What about videos stored locally, they should add http server to access is through chrome (via localhost), then add support for popular p2p protocols (hey, that's what kids demand), there will be no non-flash based games
and word processing will suck.

But it seems logical otherwise, google does html. That's what they are known for and they won't enter other markets to possibly damage their 'masters of the internet' image. It's like car manufacturer making meat products. The best they can come up with
is butcherhouse on wheels.

This might actually be a huge risk to Windows, if you ask me. The whole Google = awesome crowd has some pretty big weight, bigger so than Mac or Linux. Either that, or it'll go the same way as Linux netbooks with ordinary Walmart customers returning the
things because they just can't get their stuff done.

I agree, the Google brand is very well perceived (for many good reasons, though not all). I think it could be the second Unix like OS with a friendly interface (the first one in my opinion was OSX, I think Ubuntu is still too geeky for the masses).

Two things I don't know:

How they will they pay for it? Using their search revenues or they have anohter model? This will be the perfect portal to their services, so it might make sense.

What apps will be supported? I believe that the success of an OS is directly proportional to the number of apps it can run...

It's guaranteed to be more useless. What about videos stored locally, they should add http server to access is through chrome (via localhost), then add support for popular p2p protocols (hey, that's what kids demand), there will be no non-flash based games
and word processing will suck.

But it seems logical otherwise, google does html. That's what they are known for and they won't enter other markets to possibly damage their 'masters of the internet' image. It's like car manufacturer making meat products. The best they can come up with
is butcherhouse on wheels.

Oh wait, everything is supposed to run on web languages or something? Screw that.

This might actually be a huge risk to Windows, if you ask me. The whole Google = awesome crowd has some pretty big weight, bigger so than Mac or Linux. Either that, or it'll go the same way as Linux netbooks with ordinary Walmart customers returning the
things because they just can't get their stuff done.

I think it's more likely to be the latter. I hate to sound like a head-in-the-sand Microsoft fan-boy, but this has little more chance of success than Linux did. I mean people remember that when Asus made the original netbooks they came with Linux on them
as they wanted to make it as cheap as possible (the reasoning being that people mostly only use the browser these days anyway). Customers *demanded* Windows - Microsoft didn't have to do any of the heavy-handed marketing they are supposed to be so good at
(which is a myth anyway, but still..). Windows on netbooks was the easiest sales job Microsoft every had - all they had to do was cut the price to fit the environment and they were done, most netbooks now sell with Windows (and I'll bet most of those sold
with Linux have Windows loaded onto them afterwards).

It's one thing to say that people mostly use the web so all they need is a web browser. It's like the argument that we don't need all these "bloated" applications because people only use a small fraction of the functions. It ignores the fact that do use
the obscure functions (if only rarely) and they all use a different set of obscure functions. Likewise, people might mostly use the browser, but they all use one or two native apps occasionally, and everyone uses a different one or two native apps. So unless
your OS supports all the native apps people want to use, it's not going to be successful.

I think a better way of thinking about this is enabling devices that are not replacements for a computer, but for a SECOND computer. People will have their main machine for work, word-processing and videos. But this will be more like the Kindle - a
device (not a computer) for easy browsing. Consider Michael Arrington's CrunchPad - it's the same concept, in hardware. A simple, small device that you can have lying around your living room and can pick it up, read a website or some RSS feeds
and put back down without a fuss.

No local storage (except for caching) because this isn't built for heavy data-entry purposes. The point is to have the storage in the cloud, in gmail and Google Docs and so forth, and have them easily accessed from netbooks and tablet devices. Again, think
of the Kindle as the inspiration.

I think a better way of thinking about this is enabling devices that are not replacements for a computer, but for a SECOND computer. People will have their main machine for work, word-processing and videos. But this will be more like the Kindle - a
device (not a computer) for easy browsing. Consider Michael Arrington's CrunchPad - it's the same concept, in hardware. A simple, small device that you can have lying around your living room and can pick it up, read a website or some RSS feeds
and put back down without a fuss.

No local storage (except for caching) because this isn't built for heavy data-entry purposes. The point is to have the storage in the cloud, in gmail and Google Docs and so forth, and have them easily accessed from netbooks and tablet devices. Again, think
of the Kindle as the inspiration.

Like the fact that they're trying out the concept. Doubt it'll be much of a threat to a regular OS. It's just that many probably use their netbooks mostly for browsing atm. I am looking forward to seeing how far they can push the concept though. Crippled
as it may be - but we'll have to wait and see the final concept.

...Actually, I like the idea of hosting as much data as possible and just browsing it. It gives more security that your data isn't lost and it also gives a faster experience for things like e-mail, which is often somewhat slow on the desktop anyway - but
maybe that'll change in vNext.

So Google are making an OS with the fewest features to couple with the web browser with the fewest features? Great, I'll rush to drink that Kool-Aid.

So many of their plus points seem to be "we avoid the speed/complexity/security issues of XYZ" when it's because they aren't allowing the user to do XYZ at all. Hardly seems like a win, at least in the cases where people were never forced to do that thing
by default.

I hope this isn't the future of computing as I hate the idea of web-based apps. They're good for some things (and I'm arguably typing into one right now to post this) but not for everything. Not while so many people still have slow and/or fragile net access,
and the technologies involved are still so klunky.

That isn't to say that the way traditional desktop apps/OS work is perfect, of course.

I'm sick of hearing "the open source community" as if it's a single group of people, too.

I do not get it. What is an OS based on a browser? What does this browser run on... Windows? Does the browser have so much added code that it indeed does handle everything... system time, I/O operations...

Does anyone want to bet that Goggle will pay PC manufacturers to install it, just like they do Google Desktop Search and their toolbars?

After all if users can't run local applications any more that's all the more data on google's servers to spy, err, I mean use for targetted advertising.

<removing Microsoft hat, badge & mind control chip>

Remember kids... I’m not a lawyer and can and will only speak for myself and my own opinions... though if they were to pay for that... I suspect some competitors might have a beef that could be used to widen the antitrust investigations into them.

Now if they were to completely bend over backwards and not only provide the free OS, major marketing support on the Google online properties but also a few Googlies ...Googlers? ...Googlists? ...Googlans? ... (what do we call a plural group of Google employees
anyway?) to said companies to consult and help physically help tailor the OS to the needs of each OEM and device... that might be a little more palatable to regulators and such.